Woe to a certain somebody who thinks America lacks natural resources. Have you any idea how big the United States is? 4th largest country in the world...
But anyhow, things would be scary... trade would certainly be thrown to the dogs. The world would be shocked, I reckon. Then people would start jabbering and causing a chaotic fit amidst themselves. Those who got money from the United States would see a huge gap in their marketing areas. In the Middle East, Muslims would briefly celebrate, and then they would try to go for Israel and some European countries instead of the United States. Britain would lose its biggest ally, Canada would have a war with us, Mexicans would be slaughtered, and some people who happened to have families in the U.S. would mourn.
2006-11-01 16:14:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
If the first two great lessons of history are:
1) Never get into a land war in Asia
2) Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
Then somewhere near there must be, "Isolationist policy doesn't work on the international stage." We already tried that prior to WWI and WWII, and that was before the sweeping changes in our modern economy.
Does anyone seriously think our economy will survive without any international ties? Oil, technology, textiles, pharmaceuticals - just go right down the list of major commodities.
The underlying problem - does anyone seriously think this kind of "withdrawal" of foreign policy will not bring our leverage in the international economic arena to an abrupt, screeching halt?
While I sympathize with some of the sentiments and views expressed in this fictitious "national address", the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" response just doesn't work for me.
Rather, I would suggest you consider "noblesse oblige" and it's doctrinal implications with regard to the foreign policy of wealthy nations.
Best to you.
2006-11-01 05:22:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Timothy W 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
1 out of every 4 Christians in the world are Catholic. But the Catholic Church has changed over the years, just like the numbers have. Some Catholic Churches are old fashion, and some are more modern and lenient. That's why most people brake off into Protestant churches. As for the "no religion" people, some people that believe in God choose not to call it a "religion". Have you ever heard the saying "Jesus is my savior. Not my religion." It pretty much means worship God the way the bible says to, not the way man-made religious groups tell you to. As for the atheist, more people are becoming too smart, and thinking science is the key to everything.
2016-05-23 03:28:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The result would be a mixed bag...
Some areas would be hurt tremendously in places like South Africa; although, plenty of other countries do give humanitarian aid also. But, ironically a few surprising places would be devastated if they no longer received our humanitarian aid... ie, Palestine.
With that said, it is a mistake to look at giving aid as though we are just doing ppl a favour and they should bow down and worship us out of gratitude. This is a common mistake that some make and you even see this in this country when ppl gripe about giving the poor food stamps.
The reason that mentality is a mistake is because if you choose the path of idly standing by while the poor suffer, the end result is enormous animosity, anger, hatred and finally, crime. Crime in the form of theft at first... then as the hatred builds, those starving poor will not think twice to cut the throat of the man in a nice car just to get his wallet... after all, did that man care to help them get food? Also, when those ppl stealing food from the grocers do end up getting caught, who pays to put them in jail and their attorneys? = tax payers
So you see, giving aid is actually not about helping the poor and starving.. it is about helping a world stay civilised and actually about helping ourselves.
2006-11-01 05:29:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Happiest of will probably be the indigenous population of Diego Garcia, who, having been ethnically cleansed from their homeland by the British Government in its long established role of Mr President's prize poodle, will at last be able to return home.
The Arab world will pretty happy as well for Israeli expansion has been to date financed by the US. Let us see how many tanks they buy when they have to pay for them from their own resources.
Will they close the embassy in Grosvenor Square and enable normality to be restored to that area?
I am disappointed that in the scenario you paint, the US is to maintain commercial ties with the rest of the world. I wonder if the big US corporations will still be able to ignore the laws of lesser countries without the tacit threat of the Yankee size 12 boot in the background.
In summary, this new Monroe doctrine is a small step towards utopia.
2006-11-01 05:41:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Clive 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Only the Philiphines would suffer. As far as withdrawing your army bases local commerce would suffer temporarily. New alliances would form soon enough most likley with the EU, Russia or China that ment the status quo being kept.
The biggest problem would be immigration out of america into canada or mexico.
It's a good idea, it would let the US know full well its position in the world, that being an important country alas not vital to anyone but itself.
2006-11-01 05:24:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by John H 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Our trade with other countries would stop immediately, putting millions of American workers out of a job.
The countries that have loaned us money to finance our deficit spending would call their loans due (to the tune of some $8 TRILLION dollars), and when we couldn't pay it back they would start seizing any US property abroad.
Our economy would collapse within a few weeks, and we would get no help from any other country to keep us going. It would be the end of the US.
Like it or not, we are heavily integrated into the world economy, and we can't just pull out like that. It would be the end of our country.
2006-11-01 05:17:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
You clearly have no idea how much money the United States actually gives in foreign aid.
Our military bases are all in places where they protect OUR interests. Not to help the people of the nation.
Your whole statement just goes to prove how ridiculous the mind set of todays conservative is.
2006-11-01 05:16:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
china would ask for all the billions it was owed, the rest of the world would start paying for things in euros not dollars and the us economy would collapse as the dollars in circulation around the world became less valuable and were all exchanged.
the foreign aid is only 0.13% of gdp, nothing like as much as most other countries give. you are wrong if you think the world needs the us more than the us needs the world.
2006-11-01 05:27:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Boring 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Such an arrogant and stupid society! what do you think, US is the blood supply of earth? The world existed and was more safe before the existence of your great country. All the world civilisations grew and flourished and there was nothing called USA. People still die from hunger in Africa, Asia, even in south America and they do not see your millions!! You supply the world with bombs, rockets, bullets....you support the biggest terrorist state on earth and support killings of civilians in the middle east. You are talking about INCONVENIENCE!!do you call the lives of 655000 INCONVENIENCE!!!!
Wake up!! no body wanted you in the gulf to start with, you occupied a whole region to suck its wealth and kill its people.
2006-11-01 08:42:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Abularaby 4
·
1⤊
1⤋